OOPs, it looks as if the NY Times is going to get the "Fox News" treatment. Yes THAT NY Times "the bible of liberalism." Yesterday the "Old Grey Lady" ran a story about how some democrats are concerned that Obamacare will not bring down the costs of healthcare and may bankrupt the economy:
WASHINGTON — As health care legislation moves toward a crucial airing in the Senate, the White House is facing a growing revolt from some Democrats and analysts who say the bills Congress is considering do not fulfill President Obama’s promise to slow the runaway rise in health care spending.
Mr. Obama has made cost containment a centerpiece of his health reform agenda, and in May he stood up at the White House with industry groups who pledged voluntary efforts to trim the growth of health care spending by 1.5 percent, or $2 trillion, over the next decade.
But health economists say it is impossible to know whether the bills, including one passed by the House on Saturday night, would meet that goal, and many are skeptical that they even come close.
Of Course the Thin-Skinned White House is now going after the NY Times. It doesn't even matter that the paper was reporting other people's opinion not presenting their own. The Obama government doesn't like dissent.
White House takes on NYTimes over healthcare costs story
By Michael O'Brien
A senior White House official took on the New York Times on Tuesday over a story the paper ran warning of the fiscal impact of health reform.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Peter Orszag called out the paper's news story on the White House blog, emphasizing that President Barack Obama is committed to signing a health bill that is deficit-neutral.
"Every two weeks or so, there seems to be a story ringing the alarm bells over the fiscal dimension of health reform," Orszag wrote in his blog post. "As I've said time and again, the President is committed to signing a health reform bill that is deficit neutral in the first decade – and deficit reducing thereafter."
Former President Bill Clinton told a room full of Democratic senators Tuesday that passing health care reform — which he failed to do 15 years ago — is not only a moral issue but also “an economic imperative.”
Clinton argued that even “the most cold-hearted person” ought to support health care reform simply from an economic standpoint. He reminded Democrats of the political momentum their failure to pass reform in 1993 delivered the House of Representatives to the Republicans the following year.
"The point I want to make is: Just pass the bill, even if it's not exactly what you want," Clinton told Democrats. "When you try and fail, the other guys write history.”
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said Clinton described the ongoing tea party protests against the Democratic agenda as a sign their party was making progress.
Whitehouse quoted Clinton arguing: "The reason the tea-baggers are so inflamed is because we are winning."
Clinton’s overall message was one the Obama administration has tried to make: not passing a bill is the worse than passing one that’s not perfect.
“So it’s not important to be perfect here, it’s important to act, to move, to start the ball rolling, to claim the evident advantages that all these plans agree with, and whatever they can get the votes for, I’m gonna support,” Clinton said he told the senators. “I think it is good politics to pass this and to pass this as soon as they can. But I think the most important thing is it is the right thing for America. The worst thing to do is nothing.”
The former president’s visit to the Hill, where he has many deep ties, is steeped with irony, given Clinton’s record on the issue and the fact that the White House has gone to great lengths not to proceed on the issue in the same vein as the Clintons did.
But those are precisely the reasons why White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel reached out to the former president. And a source close to Clinton said the former president was happy to — if not took pride in — taking on the role.
“He sees a real chance to do now what they tried to do in ’93,” the source said, adding that Clinton believes that as a former president he has an obligation to do what he can to assist his successor. The source also noted that as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who took a lead role on health care reform in 1993, is barred from speaking about the politics of the issue.
Still, Obama’s calling on Bill Clinton to help with the final push of his health care initiative is the latest twist in what is shaping up to be one of the most intriguing political dramas of modern times — one where Clinton is emerging as an elder statesman of sorts to the Democratic Party.
Obama most recently turned to Clinton for help during a crisis in North Korea, where the former president was dispatched to the hermit country where two journalists were being held captive. The two had lunched recently in Manhattan, and Obama spoke at Clinton’s Global Initiative. Clinton also came out, with White House urging, to campaign for struggling Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds.
Like Obama’s nomination of Hillary Clinton as his top diplomat, Obama’s decision to turn to Clinton to help close the deal shows his acknowledgement of his enduring influence.
Clinton spoke to Democrats as divisions within the party between liberals and conservatives could derail reform. His words carry extra weight given his position as the consummate centrist, not to mention that he has long ties with members on the Hill — Clinton specifically mentioned Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus in his remarks to stress that the conservative Montana Democrat, like Clinton, wants reform and even if moderates and liberals disagree, they agree on wanting to see a bill on Obama’s desk.
Clinton also used Baucus to highlight a key difference from 1994. Then-Finance Committee Chairman Pat Moynihan (D-N.Y.) was not on board with comprehensive health care reform like Baucus is today, Clinton said, according to a Senate aide.
"He is one of those people who understand instinctively both the substance and the politics,” said Sen. Schumer of New York. “He's been through the wars.”
Some Democrats who left the lunch said Clinton spoke of passing health care with a sense of urgency.
“These opportunities don't come along frequently,” Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland recounted Clinton saying.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said Clinton suggested Obama wants to move health care off the table so he can turn his entire focus to the economy by January — in time for 2010 elections.
“What he focused on was how important it is to move this year. And I think there is a general sense is the clock is ticking," Wyden said. "That certainly in terms of the president being able to focus on the economy next year at the State of the Union that getting it done this year will in effect clear the tables and allow the focus to be on jobs and education and infrastructure.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Clinton told the caucus that when the bill is passed, the American public will begin to realize that “none of the bad things that people are talking about will come to pass.”
“He’s so brilliant in his presentation that it might leave some of us thinking, ‘This is easy, why the hell didn’t we do it,’” Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said after the lunch.
Whether Democrats pass a bill this year is “up to them to decide,” Clinton said after the Senate lunch. But, he pointed out that while Republicans have already been emboldened by divisions within the Democratic Party over reform, passing a bill can turn the tide.
“And the opposition has already been generated,” he said, “but if the support gets disenchanted then the turnout goes down and surveys don’t mean anything.”
He stressed to Democrats that they can always go back and retool initiatives and amend whatever overhaul they pass, calling it, “a big complex organic thing.”
“There is no perfect bill because there are always unintended consequences so there will be amendments to this effort,” Clinton said he told Democrats, “whatever they pass next year and the year after and the year after.”
And as if the Clinton-Obama dynamic needed any more of a spotlight, the former president’s cell phone started ringing as he finished speaking to reporters.
Did I mention they charge thousands of dollars to do worthless cleansing of the mind. ( actually it"s brain washing)
Yes they will steal not only your life they will clean out your bank accounts. BE VERY CAREFUL THESE PEOPLE ARE
DANGEROUS.
2. They shy away from teaching responsibility. The psychiatric system is geared to blame all things on chemical imbalances, genetics, and indefinite childhood experiences. If a person does something wrong, it’s because he has a mental disease; he is prescribed medications, not responsibility. This is another fundamental attitude of the psychiatric profession. And that is why when we take a failing student to a psychiatrist, he does not do better in school (Our education system is failing despite years of psychiatric involvement in our schools), and when we take a criminal to a psychiatrist, he is likely to commit another crime. (Current rate of immates returning to jail is 60%.) Responsibility level was never increased by psychiatric treatments.
3. They are purely profit driven. They make $69 billion annually paid by insurance companies alone. They hire thousands upon thousands of lobbyists to seek governmental protection of their interests and grants. They form financial relationships with drug companies. Yet we find uncaring attendants, unavailable doctors, and psychiatrists who charge hundreds of dollars to insurance companies for just listening to someone for a short interval and then prescribing some medications. They are not there to help people; they are there to make money because there is easy money in this field.
4. They do not keep their noses clean. Probably because of the above points 1-3, the psychiatric industry is filled with fraudulent and criminal activities. A study showed that at least 10% of the 650,000 psychiatrists and psychologists worldwide admit to sexually abusing their patients. A factual review of more than 800 convictions over a six-year period, shows 43% were convicted of fraud, theft and embezzlement; 32% for sex crimes; 7% for patient assault and violent crimes; 6% for drug offenses and 6% for manslaughter and murder. Unethical activities have been part of the picture in the field of psychiatry from its earliest days.
5. They use a system of voting mental illnesses into existence which makes the whole subject ludicrous. Disorders voted into existence included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the most authoritative book on officially recognized mental disorders, include “reading disorder,” “disruptive behavior disorder,” “disorder of written expression,” “mathematics disorder,” “caffeine intoxication,” and “nicotine withdrawal disorder”. The increase of mental disorders listed in the book coincides with U.S. government insurance becoming available to the mental health industry in 1968.
Because of these reasons, psychiatry did not make it. These are fundamental flaws. They are embedded in the basic theories of psychiatry itself, and these are what's wrong with the mental health system in this country.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Things Are About to Get A LOT Worse
The U.S. currency dropped against 12 of its 16 major counterparts as the International Monetary Fund said traders are probably using the dollar to fund so-called carry trades around the world and it may still be overvalued.
I hope everyone here in The United States takes a moment to understand what this means. Let me lay it out for you:
Giving away America-the Obama amnesty bill.
November 10, 12:51 PMKnoxville Conservative ExaminerLennis WaggonerPrevious Comment Print
Email
RSS Subscribe
Subscribe
Get alerts when there is a new article from the Knoxville Conservative Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use. Email Address
Include other special offers from Examiner.com
Terms of Use
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D Nevada) sponsor of Immigration Reform bill S-9
AP photo by Haraz N. GhanbariQuietly slipping through the legislative process, at least until lately, is the latest incarnation of the Immigration Reform Bill, called Immigration Legislation S-9. This is still nothing but an amnesty plan and a give away of America. This plan cheapens citizen ship by giving it to virtually anyone who can get to U.S. Soil and seek it.
Senate Minority Leader John Boehner has called this bill a "piece of shit" and while the words are strong, they re descriptive. This more than can be said of the full name of S-9 as sponsored by Senator Harry Reid. It is called the "Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act of 2009.
For starters, this bill reduces the US/Mexico border fence from 800 miles to 200 miles. It allows for chain immigration as well, where not only can an illegal get amnesty and citizenship, but he can also import his extended family as well.
Alien gang members which are estimated to be 30,000 minimum, qualify for amnesty simply by declaring they "don't to be in a gang any longer". Aliens will pay no back taxes but will qualify for the "earned income tax credit" by way of a check from the Government at taxpayer expense.
Tax payers will foot the bill for lawyers to represent illegal aliens and instate college tuition will be given to them as well. Illegals will be given legal status just 24 hours after filing, even though a background check will undoubtedly take much longer. "Temporary " visas will be granted indefinitely.
At a time when the economy is in the worst recession in many years and the competition for a dwindling number of jobs is fierce, the resentment of Americans having to compete for them with illegals is growing. What jobs are out there have had their wages depressed by this cheap labor source as well.
At 10.2% the jobless rate is higher now than it has been in more than a quarter of a century and at 17.5% the rate of people who are working below their capacity is setting another record. A Russian comedian named Yakov Smirnoff use to say at ever revelation about America "What a country!"
Native American citizens are starting to shake their heads and say the same thing.
St. Louis - Of the 1,990 pages in the healthcare reform bill passed by Congress Saturday night, page 206 is especially touted – and little understood.
That's the page that creates a federal Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) to establish not-for-profit, member-run health insurance cooperatives.
Supporters say these health cooperatives, or HCs, will reduce costs by giving smaller buyers of insurance (such as small businesses) the ability to act as a large buyer. HCs will level the playing field, giving the "little guy" much more leverage to negotiate lower prices.
They won't. What they will do is put the United States on a track toward nationalized healthcare even faster than the government-run insurance plan called the public option.
The reason HCs won't lower costs has nothing to do with politics or economics but a simple error of logic called the "fallacy of composition." Senators should take a refresher course in logic before they review page 206 and the rest of the legislation in coming weeks.
What, exactly, is a fallacy of composition? The basic idea is that if something is true for the part, it is not necessarily true for the whole. For example, if the Red Sox improve their batting average next year, they'll probably win more games. But if all major-league baseball teams improve their batting average next year, will all teams win more games? Of course not.
Yet proponents of HCs are making a similar mistake in judgment. Their fallacy results because market power is a relative concept. The advantage of being a large buyer comes at the expense of small buyers, so it is a fallacy to expect that any benefit currently derived from large buyers can be enjoyed by everyone if everyone becomes a large buyer.
Suppose, for example, that a pencilmaker sells one pencil per month to 10 separate buyers. Each pencil costs $1 to make and overhead is $10. The pencilmaker needs at least $20 in revenue per month to stay in business, so the average price per pencil must be at least $2.
Now suppose some buyers form a cooperative and use their newfound market power to negotiate a price below $2. To continue generating $20 in revenue, the pencilmaker must now charge the remaining buyers more than $2 because overhead has to be paid by someone.
If the remaining buyers also form a cooperative they may to able to negotiate the pencil price back down to $2, but only if pencil buyers in the first cooperative experience a price increase. Once everyone is large, the advantage of being large disappears.
Similarly, if "Jane" switches from a non-HC plan to a HC plan, she will probably get to pay a lower premium because the HC plan can negotiate lower reimbursement rates. But that also means that she will now be contributing less to her healthcare providers' overhead expenses than before. This forces them to make up the difference by charging non-HC plan patients more.
So if we reform the system to make small buyers large ones, then as the number of small plans declines, the large plans will run out of small plans to shift costs to, so the benefit of being large will disappear.
Some liberals find HCs appealing because they believe them to be a first step toward nationalized healthcare. Most conservatives oppose them for that very same reason. Some conservatives, however, find them appealing because they appear to be less risky than having a government-run public option that competes with private policies.
It is true that a public option carries the risk of driving all private insurance out of existence because it can set terms and rates that no private plan can actually compete with. But if a public option plan began to drive private insurers out of business, then it is at least conceivable that political pressure could emerge to correct course.
Once government-supported HCs take effect, however, they would almost certainly mean the end of private plans, because forthcoming insurance regulations will leave non-HC consumers with added costs and subtracted benefits – nudging everyone into HCs. So by establishing HCs as the centerpiece of reform and then regulating them directly, lawmakers may end up providing a faster path to de facto nationalized healthcare than a public option, which is also included in the House bill.
Indeed, what makes the House bill especially galling is that it has both HCs and a public option. Either provision, on its own, would overwhelm private healthcare. That's why voters shouldn't take much comfort in the speculation that the Senate might exclude a public option. If the Senate's version of the bill includes a provision for HCs, then reform would ultimately nationalize healthcare in America.
Those who are serious about making sure everyone has health insurance need to stop adding more layers of complexity to an already complex system.
The solution is to abolish Medicare and Medicaid, abolish the favorable tax treatment of employer-provided insurance, impose a one-price rule on procedures, and issue a voucher to every single American citizen. The creation of a voucher program would certainly take less than 1,990 pages of legislative language. This will solve the problem of the uninsured completely, immediately, and permanently in a transparent way that works with, rather than against, competition. The big losers will be special interest groups because a transparent voucher system will rob them of their ability to manipulate the system. They know this all too well, which is why they oppose it.
The bill would limit how much insurers can vary premiums based on the age of the person buying the policy. The narrower the range, the lower the premiums for older people, a help to those who currently pay some of the highest rates for insurance and often need coverage the most. But such a limitation tends to raise premiums for younger folks, who are sometimes reluctant to buy coverage.
In the House bill, the ratio can only be as much as 2 to 1, meaning older people could pay no more than twice what the youngest customers are charged. Senate Democrats, who haven't yet unveiled the bill that will go to the floor there, will have to decide whether to echo the House's ratio or use a different one. Lobbyists say one possibility might be 3 to 1, the average of two earlier Senate bills. Currently, the range isn't capped in most states and older people may pay five or six times as much.
It's tough to project the exact impact of the new age ratio because the bills contain other provisions affecting premiums.
Journal Community Vote: Do you agree with the House passing the bill to overhaul health care? .
MoreA Kaiser Family Foundation calculator that projects health-insurance premiums under the different billsAn Urban Institute report on the age-rating issueA Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association-sponsored analysis . The group favors a wider age-rating band.An AARP backgrounder on the issue . The group favors a narrower age-rating band..
Still, a calculator on the Kaiser Family Foundation Web site gives a rough sense. It suggests that under the House's 2-to-1 cap, a 20-year-old would pay $3,169 in annual premiums and a 60-year-old would pay $6,339 for comparable plans, if they both had incomes above the subsidy-eligible level. Under a bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee, which had a 4-to-1 age-rating ratio, the 20-year-old would pay $2,258 and the 60-year-old would pay $8,357.
The House bill also requires almost all Americans to carry health insurance or pay a fine.
______________________________________________________________________________
Republicans say the combined effect will be to make some young people buy expensive policies they don't want.
"We are going to tell every young American who has decided that they don't want to pay those premiums, they want to save up to get married or to buy a home, that, by golly, they are going to have to take insurance. And they are going to pay three to four times what they would under the current system because there is only a 2-to-1 ratio," said Rep. Joe Barton (R., Texas) during the weekend House debate.
Democrats, who relied on the youth vote in their 2008 election victories, counter that the bill helps young people by allowing them to stay longer on their parents' insurance plans and offering subsidies for coverage to lower-income Americans, many of whom are young people in low-paying jobs.
A spokeswoman for Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) chairman the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the House bill will help level "the playing field so that regardless of age, gender, financial or health status, individuals and families are able to afford coverage."
The impact of the premium-age ratio would be felt most directly by those buying their own health plans. Based on Congressional Budget Office projections, after 10 years, about 30 million people would be buying individual insurance under the House bill, roughly double the current figure.
Merlyn Lawrence, a 64-year-old retiree in Scottsdale, Ariz., pays around $230 a month for a high-deductible insurance plan she bought through eHealthInsurance.com. Living with her daughter and relying on her Social Security income for expenses, she has to dip into her savings to make the monthly payments and can't always afford her prescriptions, she says. "At our age, we don't have the option of a job and bringing in a monthly income," she said. "Between that age of 50 and 65, I really feel like people need to be given a break."
On the other end of the spectrum, Tyler Routson, 23, of Los Angeles, works as a runner for a recording studio and is forced to rely on his parents to help pay the premiums for his roughly $140-a-month health plan. Though he is willing to help subsidize older people's costs as a "good Samaritan gesture," he said, he is also financially stretched and hoping a health bill will bring down the price of his coverage. "I know very few people who are my age who have money to help a 50-year-old person," he said.
The seniors' lobby AARP has pushed for the narrower age-rating band, arguing that older people would otherwise be priced out of the insurance market. "Our overriding concern is affordability," said John Rother, an executive vice president with the group.
Industry officials argue that if young people are asked to pay more, fewer of them will buy insurance, and many may opt instead to pay the penalty for being uninsured.
"That makes the premiums for everyone else increase," said Alissa Fox, senior vice president of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.
Obama didn't give out a single stimulus dollar that didn't have STRINGS ATTACHED TO IT.
What is the old saying "You have to spend money to make money" well in this case spending is happening but not without responsibility. The previous 8 years it was just spending without regard..
COSTA DID SELL HIS VOTE for the healthcare for 120 million taxpayer dollars - Costa SAID that he made the $120,000,000. dollar deal when asked why he voted for the healthcare
NOTE: this is just wrong, making the people who expect him to represent them pay for a vote that goes against their wishes.
Proof in his words: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/78502.html This quote from Jim Costa was given before the vote and featured in Friday, November 6, 2009 news article-- the day before the vote showing intent to sell it.
You can see that the largest corporations are hiring up in there
overseas divisions. As the unemployment rate continue to climb
here at home. I wonder if its time for the government to raise taxes
on corporations that refuse to hire here in America.
I am a big believer in the Capitalist system, but fair is fair.
All people are welcome to comment but RE is an extreme liberal and I would like to hear why he feels that LINING OBAMA'S CRONIES WITH GIFTS IS GOING TO HELP THE ECONOMY
THESE ARE GIFTS TO OBAMA'S BUDDIES AND HE HAS CLEARLY TALKED DOWN HOW EVIL AMERICA AND HOW THEY IGNORE TAXPAYERS REQUEST TO CTRL WASTE
The Department of Homeland Security and the National Security Agency both recently announced plans for huge new electronic security centers that could monitor, sort and archive e-mails, telephone calls and other intercepted communications.
But critics wonder just who is watching the watchers.
"The director of the NSA is in charge of an organization three times the size of the CIA and empowered in 2008 by Congress to spy on Americans to an unprecedented degree," said James Bamford, author of the recently published book about the NSA, "The Shadow Factory."
He told WND the agency's ability to deal with cybersecurity and other communications is enormous.
"In 2008, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court loosened its control on the NSA and allowed for warrantless eavesdropping," he said. "Congressional oversight is very weak. A whistleblower for AT&T reported that AT&T has switch rooms in several parts of the country.
"And it wasn't Congress that found out about the extensive warrantless eavesdropping; it was a couple reporters," he said.
(Story continues below)
A number of sources in civil liberties groups say Americans have a right to be concerned about the absence of strict oversight and to wonder whose conversations are being monitored and recorded.
The Department of Homeland Security also recently announced, via Secretary Janet Napolitano, that a new complex planned in Arlington, Va., will mean more security coordination.
"Securing America's cyber infrastructure requires a coordinated and flexible system to detect threats and communicate protective measures to our federal, state, local and private sector partners and the public," Napolitano's announcement said.
"Consolidating our cyber and communications operations centers within the NCCIC will enhance our ability to effectively mitigate risks and respond to threats," she said. The agency says the project will be a 24-hour watch facility that will focus on "national efforts to address threats and incidents affecting the nation's critical information technology and cyber infrastructure."
At virtually the same time, Deputy Director for Intelligence Collection Glenn Gaffney announced the groundbreaking of the NSA's Camp Williams, Utah, facility that is to "provide intelligence and warnings related to cybersecurity threats, cybersecurity support to defense and civilian agency networks, and technical assistance to the Department of Homeland Security."
"The NSA didn't have these facilities a few years ago, but they do now," continued Bamford. "The question is, 'Why do they need them now when they didn't need them a few years ago?'
"If you think how much information can go on a 'thumb drive' (or a flash drive), you can get two or three gigabytes of information on a little thumb drive. Think how much information can go into a facility that’s a million square feet," he said.
"The NSA intercepts communications in any form, phone calls, e-mails, instant messaging, Twitters, all forms of communication," Bamford said. "They’re able to store trillions of phone calls, e-mail messages, and data trails: Web searches, parking receipts, bookstore visits, and other digital 'pocket litter.'"
He further said it's important to look at the agency's objectives.
"They could have put them [listening stations] in locations where the cables first come into the United States. If you put the secret rooms there you would be picking up just communications coming in and going out of the United States," he said. "Instead they put them in locations such as the nine-story switch in downtown San Francisco; there's a major switch there, which has both domestic and international communications.
"This raises the question: Are they targeting not only international communications but also domestic communications?" he wondered.
"The NSA certainly has the ability to listen in and monitor domestic communications. Their purpose is to eavesdrop on communications."
Lawyer, former Marine Corps officer and former Constitution Party vice presidential candidate Darrell Castle said he's not convinced that the Department of Homeland Security is really interested in security.
"It is difficult to take Mr. Obama and Ms. Napolitano seriously when they talk about security for the nation. When they are willing to secure our borders so that terrorists are not free to cross at will, they can be taken more seriously," he said.
"Despite the high sounding rhetoric of the press release I'm afraid this is all an attempt to deliver control of the last means of free communication into Obama's hands," he said.
According to Senior Fellow for Technology James Lewis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, part of the move is to expand the DHS possibilities.
"Part of the reason DHS is building its facility is so they don't have to rely on NSA. DHS has no 'snooping' capability. They don't have any of the things you'd need for this, including trained people," Lewis aid.
"From an intelligence perspective, they are functionally illiterate," he said.
Lewis also noted the difference between monitoring and reading.
"It's like the guy standing at an assembly line watching widgets whizzing by – he only pulls out the ones that look funny," he said.
It's believed the DHS project will be used to secure the federal government's computer networks, while the NSA work usually is linked to security of the military branches.
But Bill Smullen, director of the National Security Studies program for executives at the Maxwell School at Syracuse University, said coordination is a concern.
"What we don't need here is redundancy. What we do need is that all of the agencies who have a stake in security to coordinate with the other intelligence agencies," he said.
Health Care Reform: Failure to buy health insurance in the just-passed health care bill could get you five years in jail with a $250,000 fine. How can violating a law that's unconstitutional be a felony?
The passage last Saturday night of the House health care measure by a fragile 220-215 margin may well prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. In polls, townhall meetings and tea parties, Americans have shown they don't want a "reform" that costs a staggering $1.2 trillion yet fails to meet the left's desire of insuring all the uninsured.
And they certainly don't want a bill that threatens them with incarceration if they don't comply.
This monstrosity would raise insurance premiums and taxes to prohibitive levels and add unconscionably to the national debt.
It will force physicians to leave the medical profession in droves, exacerbating an already perilous doctor shortage. This and so-called cost controls will lead to rationing.
The mechanisms for deciding who gets what, if any, care — and even what care will be available — are already in place. Some, like a cost-effectiveness board, slipped into the failed stimulus bill.
Under sections 7201 and 7203 of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bill, Americans who don't maintain acceptable health insurance coverage and who choose not to pay a fine/tax of up to 2.5% of income are subject to fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
As Dave Camp, R-Mich., ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, observed, "This is the ultimate example of the Democrats' command-and-control style of governing — buy what we tell you or go to jail."
Evading the income tax is punishable by jail time. But the income tax required a constitutional amendment; it was not imposed by judicial fiat.
When asked by CNSNews where in the Constitution Congress is authorized to force Americans to buy insurance or imprison them, Pelosi gave the wide-eyed response, "Are you serious?"
Yes, Madam Speaker, we are. The Supreme Court, in United States vs. Lopez in 1995, has already specifically rejected the idea that Congress can regulate non-economic activities of individuals simply because, through a chain of events, they might have some impact down the road.
The U.S. Senate should give this nonsense a decent burial. Otherwise, that classic film line might take on a whole new meaning: "What are you in for?"
Posted on Monday, November 09, 2009 3:05:11 PM by drzz
On November 9, 2009, TV5, the international French TV channel, featured a panel of journalists on the theme of "Barack Obama, and a new vision of the United States in Africa".
The Africa's correspondant of the French national newspaper Le Figaro gave a surprising comment : "despite what one can think of George W. Bush's policies, we have to admit that he helped Africa enormously. He had a real plan and vision for this continent. This is not the case anymore with Obama. Obama as no vision for Africa. His speeches are only words."
Even the Sudanese journalist agreed : "Yes, Bush did better. We thought that Obama, with his origins, would help us, but it is not the case. He doesn't do anything. He is under pressure by his advisers and he doesn't know which solution he has to propose to Africa. This was not the case with Bush."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2009-11-09, 2:24PM PST
Reply to: comm-jksnx-1458624357@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
President Obama kept us safer than GW Bush did - guess you forgot where our
nation was this far in GW's 1st term
oh ya I feel safer, your one of those fetal position liberals for sure
President Obama signed into law Equal Pay for Equal Work
ya if you can find a job more useless legislation
President Obama signed into law new sweeping Hate Crime legislation
wow such a waste of time, ya this helps the majority of americans
President Obama has reduced the number of troops in Iraq as promised
no he was supposed to end war and bring them all home
President Obama has provided our nation with Cash for Clunkers, Rebates for
1st Time Homeowners, an extention to Unemploymnet benefits
cars another failed program ripe with lots of corruption
more corruption again in the homeowners program
oh so big of him to extend unemployment
guess you'd applaud another stimulus
President Obama WILL provide an overhaul to Health Care for Americans
this is gov takeover you find its not what you thought it was
Sorry, but our President is doing just fine..
no the truth is that if healthcare reform and capntrade don't pass now
they never will, cause a lot of the current dems are going to soon
be out of office, and obama is 1 termer and a lame duck at that, failure
WE understand that he can't fix 8 years of GW Bush blunders in 10 months
no obama is going to end any chance of a decent future for the country
you'll see as history and the facts will show in due time he is failure
We continue to have HOPE despite the likes of you
only delusional socialist on the dole idiots continue
to deny that they made a huge mistake, this change
for sure is not the change his voters envisioned
summarize you lib, more gov is better, get real country is broke
when dollar crashs here soon, all this spending is going to stop
there is a limit to any type of out of control spending and were
about to find out what that limit and the aftermath are, foolish
10.2%........Unemployment Rate & Rising (Up 42% from Inauguration Day)
17.5%........Total Underemployment + Unemployment Rate (Worst in 27 Years)
$787...........Billion “Stimulus” (95% Pork Barrel Spending, Waste & Corruption)
$700+.........Billion TARP Bank Bailout (Crony Capitalism)
$1.6+..........Trillion 2009 Budget Deficit (6,000+ Political Earmarks)
$10+...........Trillion in additional deficit spending (Next 10 Years)
15%+.........Hike in Individual Federal Income Tax Rates in 2010 (Bush Cuts Rescinded)
HOSTILE...Government Takeover of General Motors & Chrysler (ZERO ROI)
HOSTILE...Government Takeover of Sallie Mae (Student Loan Industry)
HOSTILE...$2.4 Trillion Government Takeover of Healthcare Industry (Socialism)
BOGUS......$3 Trillion Cap & Trade House Scam (Junk Science to Kill Capitalism)
40+..............Radical, Anti-American, Far Left Czars (Zero Public Transparency)
WAR..........Declared Against 1st Amendment (Fox News, Talk Radio, Chamber of Commerce)
90+ Days....To respond to a critical request for Afghan Troops (Voting “Present”)
JUMPS.......To conclusion a white police officer “acted stupidly” vs. a black professor (With no factual knowledge)
PLEADS....“Don’t jump to conclusions” in Ft. Hood Muslim Terrorism Murders (Despite overwhelming evidence)
3 Minutes...Of “Shout Outs” BEFORE Robotically Commenting on Ft. Hood Massacre (Zero empathy perceived)
ACORN......Proven to be Obama’s criminal political ground team & strategic partner (RICO & National Fraud Investigations)
FUNDS.......Global Abortions with U.S. Taxpayer Funds (1st Presidential Act)
WEEKLY....Gala White House Parties with Audacious Spending (In Midst of Worst Global Recession Since 1929)
ATTACKS...By White House against Tea Party, Town Hall, 9-12, Healthcare Protestors (Normal, civil, patriotic citizens)
WAR...........Against Middle Class Taxpayers and their Values, Beliefs, Priorities, Dreams & Liberties
U.S.A...........Is No Longer A Christian Nation
RACIAL.....Tensions at Historical Highs (So much for the post-racial climate pledge)
With a scant 10 months in office;
35..............Point Drop in Net Job Approval Rating (Largest in U.S. history)
Much is wrong in Washington, but until WE tell those in DC that they can ONLY get campaign dollars through Public Financing then we are doomed to be at the mercy of BIG BUSINESS..
fucked your black ass sister like I was the plantation master, brown sugar all nite and her other black brothers got her after I did, white sticking black ya thats the ticket and the way its meant to be for over 200 yrs here in the white states of merica bitch. fuck off, next time I shame your sister, fuck her in black pooch then make her suck the black shit off my cock (her savior) and then make her say thank you oh great white savior of mine while I'm sticking a wood splintered plunger up her ass
Nobel prize winning economist F.A.Hayek called socialism "the fatal conceit."
Why conceit? Because socialism's basic premise, according to Hayek, is that "man is able to shape the world around him according to his wishes."
Why fatal? Because, like all falsehoods and misconceptions, it leads to failure, and sometimes disaster.
Although the socialist label is being thrown around a lot now, we must recognize this isn't new. This conceit has been inflating in American hearts and minds for years, with the inexorable growth of government and the ongoing change in American attitudes about what government is about.
If there is anything new today, it's the extent to which we're taking this.
The Declaration of Independence, signed by our founders, states that man has the "unalienable rights" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and that men form government to "secure these rights." According to Jefferson's words, the purpose of the government is to protect me.
Now Congress is moving health-care legislation in which the role of government will evolve to defining what health insurance is, forcing me to buy a policy that covers what government dictates, tracking my behavior through the IRS to see if I have complied, fining me if I haven't, and sending me to jail if I refuse to do it.
Government will expand to tell employers that they have to provide government-defined insurance to their employees or be fined. And government will tell insurance companies who they have to insure and how much they can charge to do it.
And we'll spend $1 trillion dollars or so that will come one way or another out of taxpayer hides to subsidize individuals who can't afford to buy this government defined health insurance.
Whoa! Wasn't this country supposed to be about freedom?
Didn't Jefferson write those words because the colonists who came to this then-unsettled continent wanted to get kings and tyrants off their backs?
Most of the Declaration is a long list of King George's violations of colonists' freedom.
It's worth being reminded of how it starts.
"The History of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."
Do you get the feeling that what Americans once fought for we're now giving back?
Politicians are making a deal with us. We give up our freedom and they say they'll give us better, cheaper health care with everyone getting covered.
The odds of success here? Would you give me your most precious possession in exchange for my promise to do something that neither I nor anyone has every done before?
Consider the government central-planning conceit that we are now trying to recover from in the housing and financial markets.
The federal government created Federal Housing Administration, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other entities, backed by us taxpayers, to increase home ownership.
According to Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute, "almost two thirds of the bad mortgages in our financial system ... were bought by government agencies or required by government regulations."
Fannie and Freddie were bailed out last year, adding $5 trillion to our national debt, and put under government control. Now the news is it looks like FHA needs to be bailed out.
And, of course, low-income people who are the supposed beneficiaries of government compassion are the victims. Foreclosures in minority neighborhoods are reported to be seven times higher than the national average.
We can expect the same results from government taking over health care as we've gotten from housing socialism.
This country is about freedom. There's no substitute for the fruits of personal responsibility. Giving it up for the conceit of socialism is indeed a fatal mistake.
It’s a controversial question that’s been proposed many times before--
Imagine you’re by yourself on a dark street. At one end there’s a group of blacks and Hispanics. At the other sits a group of Caucasians. Both routes will get you to where you’re going in the same amount of time. Which way do you go?
Before you answer that question, let’s throw in one more variable. In front of you is sign which reads:
“You are seven times more likely to be murdered this way”
This sign has an arrow pointing in one direction. Now I ask again, which way do you go?
If you have any amount of common sense or respect for the welfare of yourself, you would go in the direction opposite of the arrow, which will take you in the direction of the group of whites. In fact, I have a hard time believing that anyone reading this would choose otherwise.
Over the years, however, we as Americans have been taught that all humans, regardless of race, are created equal. We have been taught to ignore the color of a person’s skin and instead treat them as we would everyone else. The terms “equality” and “rights-for-everyone” are quickly thrown around, yet the exact definition of ‘equality’ is never made clear.
Does equality mean being almost six times more likely to steal a car? (As blacks are)
Does it mean being seven times more likely to commit a homicide? (As blacks are)
Or maybe it means being eight times more likely to commit robbery? (Once again, as blacks are)
Right now I’m sure many of you reading this have already become engulfed with hatred and animosity towards me, placing the label of ‘racist’ and ‘bigot’ upon me in your head, although I have mentioned nothing but facts.
In fact, before many of you out there go off on some brainless racial tantrum, consider this: According to a study done a few years back by the New Century Foundation, Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a person with white skin than vice versa. Blacks actually commit more violent crimes against whites than they do against their own race.
But wait a minute…how can this be when all I’ve been told throughout my life by the ACLU, the NAACP, numerous liberal commentators and politicians, and the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson that it is the black community who is being suppressed by the evil and racist whites?
Well folks, its all one big lie. These people would like you to think that it’s the other way around, but the facts tell an entirely different story. For decades it has been drilled into the minds of Americans and those throughout the world that it is the white community who is oppressing those of color—that it is whites who view the African-American race as an entirely different species. Turns out, however, it’s blacks who target whites because of the color of their skin, an act only known as racism.
Now I’m sure there are some out there arguing these facts, stating that crime statistics are skewed because of racial profiling by law enforcement, who target and arrest innocent blacks everyday. While this ignorant attitude seems to bode well with the African community, seemingly giving blacks and other minorities a reason to turn a blind eye to the genocide happening within their own communities, it is just that—ignorance.
They would love to believe that all law enforcement officials constantly profile their race, but that simply isn’t the case. In fact, a recent study performed by Maryland’s Public Service Research Institute actually uncovered the exact opposite. Turns out law enforcement officers were stopping too few blacks (about 23%) compared to how many were actually committing traffic crimes (about 25%). Reports then started piling in from across the country, with officers anonymously stating that when given the opportunity, they would rather arrest a white suspect than a black one, out of fear of being labeled a racist…a sad realization that we have now come to in America, courtesy of the NAACP, ACLU, and numerous black activists who only see the color of one’s skin.
Who are the real racists in this country? If we really must place this label on one race, it's none other than those in the African-American community. They continue to ignore the problems within their own race, dismissing facts and guidance from outsiders, and instead label those who try to point out their numerous issues as bigots and racists. They constantly cry out to others to be treated fairly, yet ironically it is themselves who keep equality from reaching their community.
Instead of changing their behaviors, they continue to harp on events which took place centuries ago—events which have no place being discussed in today’s time. They state that the racial divide in this country has to end, yet their actions and reluctance to accept personal responsibility are the reason we have the racial tensions in this country which are seen today.
If they truly want to be seen as 'equal' and end the stereotypes which are in place today, then how about implanting some “Change” in their society.
How about teaching young African-Americans respect for law enforcement and authority.
How about combating the high drop-out rates and teaching young children the importance of staying in school and getting an education.
How about a zero tolerance for drug use and combating the fact that most homicides involving blacks are drug-related.
How about attacking the real issues at hand and quit placing blame on others.
How about ending this "It's because I'm black" attitude that causes racial divide.
How about calling out the hip-hop and rap industry which glorifies the 'thug' lifestyle and threatens family values and morals.
How about reducing teen pregnancy and teaching parents the importance of setting good examples for their children.
How about instead of backing six animals that viciously beat another student, you instead teach them that this behavior is intolerable.
How about instead of constantly attacking others for racial issues that took place decades ago, you instead confront the current issues within your own race.
How about when someone speaks out concerning certain issues within your race that need to be addressed, you actually listen instead of placing the label of 'racist' on them.
Al Sharpton: Sharpton, a perrenial Democrat candidate and one of the rumored candidates for the
Democrat's 2004 presidential nomination, has a notorious racist past. Sharpton was a central
figure who fanned the 1991 Crown Heights race riot, where a mob shouting anti-semetic slurs
murdered an innocent Jewish man. Sharpton also incited a 1995 protest of a Jewish owned store in
Harlem where protesters used several anti-semetic slurs. During the protests, a Sharpton
lieutenant called the store's owner a "bloodsucker" and declared an intent to "loot the Jews."
A member of the protest mob later set fire to the store, resulting in the death of seven
(source).
Representative Dick Gephardt, D-MO: Gephardt, the former Democrat Minority Leader in the U.S.
House of Representatives, gave several speeches to a St. Louis area hate group during his early
years as a representative. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Gephardt spoke before the
Metro South Citizens Council, a now defunct white supremacist organization, during his early
years as a congressman. Newsmax.com further reported that Gephardt had openly asked the group
for an endorsement of his candidacy during one of his many visits with the organization.
Gephardt has long avoided questions about his past affiliation with this group.
Andrew Cuomo: Cuomo, Bill Clinton's former Housing Secretary and a prominent Democrat political
player in New York, was tape recorded using racially inflamatory rhetoric to build opposition
to a potential Democrat primary opponent while speaking to a Democrat group. Cuomo stated that
voting for his rival for the New York Democrat gubernatorial nomination Carl McCall, who is
black, would create a "racial contract" between Black and Hispanic Democrats "and that can't
happen." Upon initial reports, Cuomo denied the statement but later a tape recording surfaced.
Cuomo later dropped out of the race for governor (source).
Lee P. Brown: Brown, Bill Clinton's former drug czar and Democrat mayor of Houston, engaged in
racist campaigning designed to suppress Hispanic voter turnout during his 2001 reelection bid.
Brown faced challenger Orlando Sanchez, a Hispanic Republican who drew heavy support from the
Hispanic community during the general election. Two weeks prior to the runoff, Brown's campaign
printed racist signs designed to intimidate Hispanic voters. The signs featured a photograph of
Sanchez and the words "Anti-Hispanic." The signs drew harsh criticism from Hispanic leaders as
their message was designed to intimidate and confuse Hispanic voters. Around the same time the
signs were being used, Brown supporter and city councilman Carol Alvarado made a series of
racially charged attacks on Sanchez, implying a desire to see the supression of Hispanic voter
turnout in the runoff. Brown staffers also went on record claiming that Sanchez was not a true
Hispanic. The racist anti-Hispanic undertones of Brown's reelection bid were so great that
liberal Democrat city councilman John Castillo, himself Hispanic, retracted his endorsement of
Brown in disgust and became a Sanchez supporter in the final week of the campaign. Following
the harsh condemnation of the racist signs and tactics, Brown purported that his campaign was
removing them even though many still lingered around Houston up until the election. When
election day came along, Brown placed more of the racist signs at polling places, despite his
claim to have stopped using them. The large campaign billboard style election day signs featured,
in Spanish, the word "Danger!" on them followed by Sanchez's name with a large red circle and
slash through it. The signs identified the Brown campaign as their owner on the bottom. Brown's
racially charged reelection effort barely squeeked by Sanchez on election day, winning 51% to
49% following a series of racially motivated advertisements in which the Brown campaign appealed
to the fear of black voters by invoking images of the gruesome lynching death of James Byrd,
Jr. and by attempting to pit them against Hispanics. While Brown had the audacity to declare
himself a mayor for all people and all ethnicities at his victory party, many in Houston fear
the racial wounds inflicted by his campaign will take years to heal.
Mary Frances Berry: Berry is the Democrat chair of the US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR).
She purports herself to be an "independent" in her political affiliation in order to hold her
job on the civil rights commission where partisan membership may not exceed 4 for either party,
but is in fact a dedicated liberal Democrat who openly supported Al Gore for president and has
given a total of $20,000 in personal contributions to the Democrat Party, Al Gore for President,
and other Democrat candidates over the last decade. Berry is an open racist who is affiliated
with the far-left Pacifica radio network, a group with ties to black nationalist causes. Berry
once stated "Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not
apply to them," indicating that she believes the USCCR should only look out for civil rights
violations against persons of certain select skin colors.
Billy McKinney: Former Democrat State Representative Billy McKinney of Georgia, who is also the
father of former Democrat congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of the same state. During his
daughter's failed 2002 reelection bid, McKinney appeared on television where he blamed his
daughter's difficulties on a Jewish conspiracy. McKinney unleashed a string of anti-semitic
sentiments, stating "This is all about the Jews" and spelling out "J-E-W-S." McKinney lost his
own seat in a runoff a few weeks later.
The Democrat Party and the Ku Klux Klan: Aside from the multiple Klan members who have served
in elected capacity within the high ranks of the Democrat Party, the political party itself has
a lengthy but often overlooked history of involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. Though it has
been all but forgotten by the media, the Democrat National Convention of 1924 was host to one
of the largest Klan gatherings in American history. Dubbed the "Klanbake convention" at the
time, the 1924 Democrat National Convention in New York was dominated by a platform dispute
surrounding the Ku Klux Klan. A minority of the delegates to the convention attempted to
condemn the hate group in the party's platform, but found their proposal shot down by Klan
supporters within the party. As delegates inside the convention voted in the Klan's favor,
the Klan itself mobilized a celebratory rally outside. On July 4, 1924 one of the largest Klan
gatherings ever occurred outside the convention on a field in nearby New Jersey. The event was
marked by speakers spewing racial hatred, celebrations of their platform victory in the
Democrat Convention, and ended in a cross burning.
II. Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Movement:
A little known fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the civil rights movement by
several prominent Democrats. Similar historical neglect is given to the important role
Republicans played in supporting the civil rights movement. A calculation of 26 major civil
rights votes from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil
rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the
votes! These facts are often intentionally overlooked by the left wing Democrats for obvious
reasons. In some cases, the Democrats have told flat out lies about their shameful record during
the civil rights movement.
Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard
bearers including:
- Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia
- J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton
- Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been
known to lie about his father's opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
- Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame
- Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore
The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes
Senators:
- Hill and Sparkman of Alabama
- Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas
- Holland and Smathers of Florida
- Russell and Talmadge of Georgia
- Ellender and Long of Louisiana
- Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi
- Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina
- Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina
- Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee
- H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia
- R. Byrd of West Virginia
Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party
in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of
Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends
occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans
and 94% of Senate Republicans. The same Democrat standard bearers took their normal racists
stances, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort.
It took the hard work of Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Republican Whip
Thomas Kuchel to pass the Civil Rights Act (Dirksen was presented a civil rights accomplishment
award for the year by the head of the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). Upon breaking the
Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Republican Dirksen took to the Senate floor
and exclaimed "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in
education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!" (Full text of
speech). Sadly, Democrats and revisionist historians have all but forgotten (and intentionally
so) that it was Republican Dirksen, not the divided Democrats, who made the Civil Rights Act a
reality. Dirksen also broke the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was
signed by Republican President Eisenhower.
Outside of Congress, the three most notorious opponents of school integration were all Democrats:
- Orval Faubus, Democrat Governor of Arkansas and one of Bill Clinton's political heroes
- George Wallace, Democrat Governor of Alabama
- Lester Maddox, Democrat Governor of Georgia
The most famous of the school desegregation standoffs involved Governor Faubus. Democrat Faubus
used police and state forces to block the integration of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas.
The standoff was settled and the school was integrated only after the intervention of Republican
President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Even the Democrat Party organization resisted integration and refused to allow minority
participation for decades. Exclusion of minorities was the general rule of the Democrat Party
of many states for decades, especially in Texas. This racist policy reached its peak under the
New Deal in the southern and western states, often known as the New Deal Coalition region of
FDR. The Supreme Court in Nixon v. Herndon declared the practice of "white primaries"
unconstitutional in 1927 after states had passed laws barring Blacks from participating in
Democrat primaries. But the Democrat Parties did not yield to the Court’s order. After Nixon v.
Herndon, Democrats simply made rules within the party's individual executive committees to bar
minorities from participating, which were struck down in Nixon v. Condon in 1932. The Democrats,
in typical racist fashion, responded by using state parties to pass rules barring blacks from
participation. This decision was upheld in Grovey v. Townsend, which was not overturned until
1944 by Smith v. Allwright. The Texas Democrats responded with their usual ploys and turned to
what was known as the "Jaybird system" which used private Democrat clubs to hold white-only
votes on a slate of candidates, which were then transferred to the Democrat party itself and put
on their primary ballot as the only choices. Terry v. Adams overturned the Jaybird system,
prompting the Democrats to institute blocks of unit rule voting procedures as well as the
infamous literacy tests and other Jim Crow regulations to specifically block minorities from
participating in their primaries. In the end, it took 4 direct Supreme Court orders to end the
Democrat's "white primary" system, and after that it took countless additional orders, several
acts of Congress, and a constitutional amendment to tear down the Jim Crow codes that
preserved the Democrat's white primary for decades beyond the final Supreme Court order ruling
it officially unconstitutional.
Hispanics in South Texas were treated especially poorly by the Democrat Party, which relied
heavily on a system of political bosses to coerce and intimidate Hispanics into voting for
Democrat primary candidates of choice. Though coercion is illegal, this system, known as the
Patron system, is still in use to this day by local Democrat parties in some heavy Hispanic
communities of the southwest.
The next time Democrats take to the national airwaves to dishonestly accuse Republicans of
racial hatred, remember who the historical record up until this very day points to as the real
bigots: The Democrat Party. In all possible ways, the Democrat Party is built around the
pillars of ultra leftists, many of whom are known participants in racism and/or affiliates of
racist hate groups. Consider the Democrat Party of today's heroes and leaders:
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democrat icon and orchestrator of Japanese Internment
- Ex-House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, former affiliate of a St. Louis area racist group
- Ex-Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd, former Ku Klux Klansman known for making bigoted
slurs on national television
- Rev. Jesse Jackson, Democrat keynote speaker and race hustler known for making anti-Semitic
slurs
- Rev. Al Sharpten, Democrat activist and perennial candidate and race hustler known inciting
anti-Semitic violence in New York City
- Sen. Ernest Hollings, leading Democrat Senator known for use of racial slurs against several
minority groups
- Lee P. Brown, former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat mayor of Houston who won reelection
using racial intimidation against Hispanic voters
- Andrew Cuomo, former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat candidate for NY Governor who made
racist statements about a black opponent.
- Dan Rather, Democrat CBS news anchor and editorialist known for using anti-black racial
epithets on a national radio broadcast
- Donna Brazile, former Gore campaign manager known for making anti-white racial attacks.
Brazile has also worked for Jackson, Gephardt, and Michael Dukakis
The simple truth is that the Democrat Party's history during this century is one closely aligned
to bigotry in a record stemming largely out of the liberal New Deal era up until the modern day.
Bigots are at the center of the Democrat party's current leadership and role models. And in a
striking display of hypocrisy, many of the same Democrats who dishonestly shout accusations of
"bigotry" at conservatives are practicing bigots of the most disgusting and disreputable kind
themselves.
A common attack upon conservatives and republicans by the ultra left is to engage in what has
come to be known as "playing the race card" but is more accurately described as racial
McCarthyism. Hardly a day goes by without a member of the far left wing falsely accusing
conservatives of racism, bigotry, and a wide array of similar nasty things. They are not
only dishonest, but they often border on the absurd, as in NAACP leader and hyper bigot
Julian Bond's recent implication to his organization that Bush administration officials
supported confederate slavery. Amazingly, Bond's statements went without condemnation from
the radical Democrat party or others in his organization.
Not surprisingly, in all the lies and accusations of racism by the radical left wing, the truth
becomes distorted not only about the Republicans but also the Democrats who make these
accusations themselves. For instance, you may or may not have heard Democrat Senator Robert
Byrd's outburst of racist bigoted slurs, more specifically the "n-word," on national television
in March of 2001. Amazingly, this incident of blatant racism on national television drew barely
a peep from the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond, Mary Frances Berry, or any of the other
ambulance chasers who purport themselves to be the leaders of the civil rights movement. In
contrast, the main source of well deserved criticism for Byrd's racist outburst came not from
any of the so called leaders of the civil rights movement but from from Republican Majority
Leader Dick Armey (source). The race hustlers Jackson, Mfume et al turned a blind eye towards
this act of racism by one of their own party, at most issuing an unpublicized slap on the wrist,
or, as was more often the case, making not a peep. But where the race hustlers turn a blind eye
and spew their lies, it is up to conservatives to set the record straight with the truth.
In response to the growing practice of racial McCarthyism by prominent left wing Democrats, it
is necessary to expose the truth about the Democrat Party's record on Civil Rights:
I. Acts of Bigotry by Prominent Democrats and Leftists:
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Franklin Roosevelt, the long time hero and standard bearer of the
Democrat Party, headed up and implemented one of the most horrible racist policies of the 20th
Century – the Japanese Internment Camps during World War II. Roosevelt unilaterally and
knowingly enacted Japanese Internment through the use of presidential Executive Orders 9066 and
9102 during the early years of the war. These orders single-handedly led to the imprisonment of
an estimated 120,000 law abiding Americans of Japanese ancestry, the overwhelming majority of
them natural born second and third generation American citizens. Countless innocents lost their
property, fortunes, and, in the case of an unfortunate few, even their lives as a result of
Roosevelt's internment camps, camps that have been accurately described as America's
concentration camps. Perhaps most telling about the racist nature of Roosevelt's order was his
clearly expressed intention to apply it almost entirely to Japanese Americans, even though
America was also at war with Germany and Italy. In 1943, Roosevelt wrote regarding concerns of
German and Italian Americans that they t0o would share in the fate of the interned Japanese
Americans, noting that "no collective evacuation of German and Italian aliens is contemplated
at this time." Despite this assertion, Roosevelt did exhibit his personal fears about Italian
and German Americans, and in his typical racist form he used an ethnic stereotype to make his
point. Expressing about his position on German and Italian Americans during World War II,
Roosevelt stated “I don’t care so much about the Italians, they are a lot of opera singers,
but the Germans are different. They may be dangerous.”
Roosevelt also appointed two notorious segregationists to the United States Supreme Court.
Roosevelt appointed South Carolina segregationist Democrat Jimmy Byrnes to the court. Roosevelt
later made Byrnes a top advisor, where the segregationist earned the nickname “assistant
president.” Byrnes was Roosevelt’s second choice behind Harry Truman for the VP nod in his 1944
reelection bid. Roosevelt also appointed segregationist Democrat Senator Hugo Black of Alabama
to the court. Black was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan with a notorious record of racism
himself.
Hugo Black: A former Democrat Senator from Alabama and liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice
appointed by FDR, Hugo Black had a lengthy history of hate group activism. Black was a member
of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920's and gained his legal fame defending Klansmen under prosecution
for racial murders. In one prominent case, Black provided legal representation to Klansman
Edwin Stephenson for the hate-induced murder of a Catholic priest in Birmingham. A jury composed
of several Klan members acquited Stephenson of the murder, reportedly after Black expressed
Klan gestures to the jury during the trial. In 1926 Black sought and won election as a Democrat
to the United States Senate after campaigning heavily to Klan membership. He is said to have
told one Klan audience "I desire to impress upon you as representatives of the real Anglo-Saxon
sentiment that must and will control the destinies of the stars and stripes, that I want your
counsel." In the Senate Black became a stauch supporter of the liberal New Deal initiatives of
FDR and a solid opponent of civil rights legislation, including a filibuster of an anti-lynching
measure. Black led the push for several New Deal programs and was a key participant in FDR's
court packing scandal. Roosevelt appointed Black, a loyal ally, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
During the Senate confirmation of Black's nomination, the issue of his strong Klan affiliations
caused a public controversy over his appointment. Following the confirmation Roosevelt claimed
ignorance of Black's Klan past, though this claim was dubious at best. Black's first Senate
election, which occurred with Klan support, had been covered nationally a decade earlier in
1926. Black's Klan affiliations were a well known part of his political background and recieved
heavy coverage in the newspapers at the time of his appointment. On the court, Black became a
liberal stalwart. He also continued his career of supporting racism by authoring the opinion in
favor of FDR's Japanese internment program in the infamous Korematsu ruling.
Senator Robert Byrd, D-WV: Byrd is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan and is currently the
only national elected official with a history in the Klan, a well known hate group. Byrd was
extremely active in the Klan and rose to the rank of “Kleagle,” an official Klan membership
recruiter. Byrd once stated that he joined the Klan because it was effective in "promoting
traditional American values" (Source). Byrd's choice of words speak volumes about his bigotry
considering the fact that the Klan is a notorious hate group, and the racist "values" it
promotes are anything but American. One of the earliest criticisms of Byrd's Klan ties came in
1952 when he was running for Congress. Byrd responded by claiming that he had left the Klan in
1943 while noting that "(d)uring the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested
in the Klan." Byrd was lying, however, as he engaged in correspondence with a Klan Imperial
Wizard long after he claims to have ended his ties with the hate group.
In a letter to the Klan leadership (Source) dated 3 years after he purported to have ended his
ties with them, Byrd wrote "I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the
adjoining counties of the state. The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to
see its rebirth here in West Virginia." Byrd continued his racist diatribe "It is necessary that
the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union" and followed with a request
for assistance from the hate group's leadership in "rebuilding the Klan in the realm" of West
Virginia.
Byrd's racism extends far beyond his Klan membership. In a letter he wrote on the subject of
desegregating the armed forces, Byrd escalated his racist rhetoric to an appalling level. In
the letter, Byrd vowed that he would never fight in an integrated armed services noting
"(r)ather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise
again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to
the blackest specimen from the wilds" (Source).
Byrd's racist opinions have shown their ugly face in his behavior in the Senate. Byrd led the
filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, according to the United States Senate's own
website, filibustered the legislation to the bitter end appearing as one of the last opponents
to the act before a coalition of civil rights proponents led by Republican Minority Leader
Everett Dirksen invoked cloture so that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could pass. At the time,
Byrd was in the the midst of a 14 hour and 13 minute filibuster diatribe against the key civil
rights measure (Source). Throughout the 1960's, Byrd was was one of the staunchest opponents
to civil rights in the U.S. Senate. Byrd’s racist history drew attention recently when he went
on national television and repeatedly used the n-word, one of the most vicious racial slurs in
existence, in an appearance on national television. Byrd uttered the slur on Fox News Sunday
with Tony Snow on March 5, 2001. Despite the appalling nature of the remark, it went largely
ignored by the mainstream media and the self appointed "civil rights" leadership. Whereas a
similar remark by anyone other than a leading Democrat Senator would assuredly prompt the likes
of Jesse Jackson to assemble protest rallies demanding resignations, the Jackson crowd was
eerily quiet following Byrd's remarks, issuing only low key suggestions that Byrd should avoid
making such bigoted remarks.
In a sickening recognition of Byrd's appalling political career, the national Democrat party has
done nothing but embrace the West Virginia senator with leadership roles and practically every
honor imaginable. To this very day the Democrats call former Klansman turned U.S. Senator Robert
Byrd the "conscience of the Senate." They have embraced him as their party's central pillar in
all ways possible. Byrd has been reelected more times than any other Democrat senator, has
served as a Democrat in Congress, a Democrat State Senator in West Virginia, and a Democrat
State Delegate in West Virginia. Democrats have made repeatedly elected Byrd into their national
party leadership and into the U.S. Senate leadership. He became secretary of the Senate Democrat
Caucus in 1967, and Senate Democrat Whip in 1971. The Democrats elected former Klansman Byrd as
their Senate Majority Leader from 1977-1980 and as their Senate Minority Leader from 1981-1986.
Byrd was again elected Democrat Majority Leader from 1987-1988. Democrats made Byrd the chairman
of the powerful Appropriations Committee and President Pro Tempore of the Senate from 1989 until
the Republicans won control of the Senate in November 1994. Following the defection of Jim
Jeffords in June 2001, the Democrats again made Byrd the chairman of the Appropriations Committee
and elected him to the highest ranking office in the Senate: the President Pro Tempore, a position
which also put this former Klansman 4th in line for the presidency. Byrd lost his position when
Republicans retook the Senate in late 2002, but continues to serve as one of the highest ranking
members of the Democrat Senate leadership today.
Senator Ernest Hollings, D-SC: Hollings is liberal Democrat Senator from South Carolina who is
also notorious for his use of racial slurs. He rose out of the Democrat Party's segregationist
wing in the 1960's as governor of South Carolina. While in office as governor, Hollings personall
y led the opposition to lunch counter integration in his state. The New York Times reported on
March 17, 1960 that then-governor Hollings "warned today that South Carolina would not permit
'explosive' manifestations in connection with Negro demands for lunch-counter services."
According to the article, Hollings gave a speech in which he "challenged President Eisenhower's
contention that minorities had the right to engage in certain types of demonstrations" against
segregation. In the speech Hollings described the Republican president as "confused" and asserted
that Eisenhower had done "great damage to peace and good order" by supporting the rights of
minorities to protest segregation at the lunch counters.
Governor Hollings' support for segregation continued throughout his term and included his
attendance at a July 23, 1961 meeting of segregationist Democrats to organize their opposition
to the civil rights movement. Hollings was one of four governors in attendence, all of them
Democrats. The others included rabid segregationists Orval Faubus of Arkansas and Ross Barnett
of Mississippi. The New York Times reported on the meeting, noting that among the strategies
discussed were using the segregationist White Citizens Council organization to mobilize
political opposition to desegregation.
In more recent years Hollings, a senior Democrat senator, has made disparaging racial remarks
and slurs against minorities. Senator Hollings, who was a contender for his party's presidential
nomination in 1984, blamed his defeat in the primaries by using a racial slur against Hispanics.
After losing the Iowa Straw Poll, Hollings stated "You had wetbacks from California that came
in here for Cranston," referring to one of his opponents, Alan Cranston. A few years later
Hollings reportedly used the slur "darkies" to derogatorily refer to blacks. He also once
disparagingly referred to the Rainbow PUSH Coalition as the "Blackbow Coalition," and called
former Senator Howard Metzenbaum, who is Jewish, "the Senator from B'nai B'rith." Hollings
gained international criticism for his remarks about the African Delegation to the 1993 Geneva
GATT conference, where he crudely remarked "you'd find these potentates from down in Africa,
you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in
Geneva." Hollings was also the Governor of South Carolina who raised the confederate flag over
the state capitol in the early 1960's in what was considered at the time to be an act of
defiance to civil rights. The press ignored Hollings and his role in the flag issue at the same
time the political correctness police were smearing George W. Bush during his campaign after
Bush correctly remarked that the flag was a state issue to be decided upon by South Carolina
and not the national government.
Jesse Jackson: Jackson was the featured prime time speaker at the 2000 Democrat Convention.
Jackson has a history of using anti-Semitic slurs and derogatorily calling New York City
“Hymietown.” Jackson, a prominent self proclaimed "civil rights leader," is himself guilty of
the same bigotry he dishonestly purports to oppose.
Dan Rather: Rather, the well known television anchor for CBS, is also a liberal Democrat who
has spoken at fundraisers for the Democrat party in the past. The notoriously left wing reporter
appeared on the Don Imus radio show on July 19, 2001 where he was interviewed about his long
term refusal to cover the Gary Condit (D-CA) scandal involving an affair with a missing intern
despite the scandal's national prominence. Rather noted on the air that CBS had basically forced
him to cover the story that was on every other network and on the front page of all the major
newspapers, all this after Rather avoided it for months. Rather stated on the air, refering to
CBS, that "they got the Buckwheats" and made him cover the Condit scandal. The term "Buckwheat"
is considered an offensive racial stereotype that stems from an easily frightened black
character named "Buckwheat" on the Little Rascals comedies. It is widely regarded as a racial
epithet and has long been condemned as an offensive stereotype by several civil rights
organizations. In several past incidents (see here and here) the use of the epithet "Buckwheat"
has recieved condemnation by the NAACP, Al Sharpton and other left wing organizations. These
left wing organizations and personalities have demanded that other media personalities be fired
over using the epithet, and even staged a protest at a school over the mere allegation that the
racist stereotype had been used by a teacher. Yet these same liberal groups have, to date,
remained completely silent now that one of their own, Dan Rather, is guilty of using the same
offensive racial stereotype they have condemned elsewhere on a national radio show. It's just
more proof of how the left wingers who cry the loudest with accusations of racism against others
turn a blind eye when somebody of their own left wing ideology is the undeniable culprit of a
blatantly racist act or statement!
Redding, CA Now Has A Tea Party Against Amnesty Planned as a street corner protest to take place 1-2pm at the corner of Churn Creek and Cypress Avenue.
The local Tea Party group sporting this event is The Bostonian Tea Party in Redding.
We are happy to see an event up in the northern part of California!
For more events or to show your opposition to AMNESTY for illegal aliens, sign up at: www.AgainstAmnesty.com
In his nationally televised remarks following the horrendous killings at Ft. Hood, President Obama never mentioned the T word. The attack was an act "of violence." No mention of terrorism.
In fact, the Ft. Hood shooting is the first terror attack on American soil since 9-11. But Obama, reluctant to take the rap for inadequate protections against such attacks, is doing everything he can to make it look like an adult version of the Columbine school shootings. We are treated to stories about the killer's dread of being sent back to Afghanistan and his deformed personality.
But, the fact is that Major Nidal Malik Hasan jumped on a table, yelled "Alah Hu Akhbar" and began the shooting rampage that killed 13 people and wounded 30 more.
Ilana Freedman, CEO and Senior Analyst for the Gerard Group International, which provides intelligence analysis for business and homeland security, describes Hasan as a "lone wolf terrorist" who acts without apparent coordination with any other person or organization. But that does not make him any less of a terrorist.
The dividing line, of course, between a terrorist and a psychopathic killer is political motivation. His statements right before opening fire would indicate that Hasan was motivated by fanaticism and a commitment to Islamic fascism, even though President Obama bends over backwards to avoid saying so.
Obama's refusal to call the attack terrorism, and to heed the warning signs about the porous nature of our security system that allowed it to happen on a military base, recalls President Clinton's deliberate decision to downplay the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. He did not visit the site of the attack and treated it as a crime, promising to find those guilty and punish them, rather than to attack the international groups that funded and enabled them.
There may be no groups behind Major Hasan's attack, but the fact that he was an officer in the Army, with full access to a military base and its arsenal of weapons, while holding the views he did, is the first indication of a laxity in security under President Obama. This attack did not take place in a shopping mall or a school, where security procedures are, understandably, relaxed. It happened on the highest security place of all - a military base! That the military failed to spot the possibility of an attack and had no measures in place to prevent it must be laid at the feet of the commander-in-chief of that military: President Barack Obama.
Many commentators have warned that the diminution of security and the weakening of our anti-terrorist protections would leave us vulnerable to be hit again. Now it has happened. And the president is doing everything he can to blur the distinction between murder and terrorism.
It was his failure to understand the difference between an act of war and a crime that undermined President Clinton's administration's anti-terror efforts and led directly to 9-11. It would appear that President Obama is going down the same road of denial and minimization of political harm. There may be casualties at Ft. Hood, but Obama is determined that his popularity will not be among them.
BHO: I want single payer universal health. breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan/
He wants more competition? see
breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance
Dr Betsy McCaughey, patient advocate; expert on the DANGERS OF OBAMACARE.
Media Matters said Rush, Glenn Beck & Hannity said the health care crisis was manufactured because they are rich
& mean. You be the judge, are these some of the reasons it's manufactured?
1) You need a health card to get free emergency care even in "advanced" socialism. Millions of illegal aliens,
poor & tightwads get it in the US. It's the law, no accident... Like shoplifting, it drives up costs for everyone.
Obama Care wasn't going to ask if you're a citizen, let alone require it... It buys votes - at your expense...
BHO's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act will let in 103 million more in the next 20 yrs.
:http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1076.cfm
2) Medicare fraud ONLY is BIGGER in total volume than the drug business!! Medicare & Medicaid fraud is
VERY easy & costs us $90 bill./yr. http://www.cbsnews.com/ stories/2009/10/23/60minutes/main5414390.shtml
WHY WAS IT NEVER FIXED?--FOR YEARS!
3) Outrageous rewards, HUGE malpractice insurance rates from suits cost us $200 bill./yr. Reform would help
300 mill. people, but a Dem-controlled congress resists it. (& trial lawyers are BIG contributors)
:plime.com/l/133838-history/1/
Someone was trying to create a crisis? Who thinks a crisis is good? Good to bring in gov't-run health?
Upset us so much, we'd jump at any "CHANGE" ?!
10.2%........Unemployment Rate & Rising (Up 42% from Inauguration Day)
17.5%........Total Underemployment + Unemployment Rate (Worst in 27 Years)
$787...........Billion “Stimulus” (95% Pork Barrel Spending, Waste & Corruption)
$700+.........Billion TARP Bank Bailout (Crony Capitalism)
$1.6+..........Trillion 2009 Budget Deficit (6,000+ Political Earmarks)
$10+...........Trillion in additional deficit spending (Next 10 Years)
15%+.........Hike in Individual Federal Income Tax Rates in 2010 (Bush Cuts Rescinded)
HOSTILE...Government Takeover of General Motors & Chrysler (ZERO ROI)
HOSTILE...Government Takeover of Sallie Mae (Student Loan Industry)
HOSTILE...$2.4 Trillion Government Takeover of Healthcare Industry (Socialism)
BOGUS......$3 Trillion Cap & Trade House Scam (Junk Science to Kill Capitalism)
40+..............Radical, Anti-American, Far Left Czars (Zero Public Transparency)
WAR..........Declared Against 1st Amendment (Fox News, Talk Radio, Chamber of Commerce)
90+ Days....To respond to a critical request for Afghan Troops (Voting “Present”)
JUMPS.......To conclusion a white police officer “acted stupidly” vs. a black professor (With no factual knowledge)
PLEADS....“Don’t jump to conclusions” in Ft. Hood Muslim Terrorism Murders (Despite overwhelming evidence)
3 Minutes...Of “Shout Outs” BEFORE Robotically Commenting on Ft. Hood Massacre (Zero empathy perceived)
ACORN......Proven to be Obama’s criminal political ground team & strategic partner (RICO & National Fraud Investigations)
FUNDS.......Global Abortions with U.S. Taxpayer Funds (1st Presidential Act)
WEEKLY....Gala White House Parties with Audacious Spending (In Midst of Worst Global Recession Since 1929)
ATTACKS...By White House against Tea Party, Town Hall, 9-12, Healthcare Protestors (Normal, civil, patriotic citizens)
WAR...........Against Middle Class Taxpayers and their Values, Beliefs, Priorities, Dreams & Liberties
U.S.A...........Is No Longer A Christian Nation
RACIAL.....Tensions at Historical Highs (So much for the post-racial climate pledge)
With a scant 10 months in office;
35..............Point Drop in Net Job Approval Rating (Largest in U.S. history)
Nationalized health care will control all of our entire private, personal lives
Traitors Have Just Pierced The Heart of America!
Ron Ewart Bio
Print friendly
E-mail a friend
Contact Us
By Ron Ewart Sunday, November 8, 2009
”. . . from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.”
In essence, that is what the Democrats in the U. S. House of Representatives said to the American people on the night they shot an arrow into the heart of freedom ..... but unfortunately, it wasn’t their last breath. In unprecedented arrogance they pointed their middle finger at each one of you and said freedom doesn’t matter, the constitution doesn’t matter and what is right under the umbrella of liberty, doesn’t matter.
The only thing that matters to them is “buying” more votes from ignorant, naive and hopelessly dependent people by nationalizing American Health Care, to once and for all put a progressive/liberal/socialist/Marxist hold on the balance of power in the United States of America, in perpetuity. Never have so few trampled on so many free souls and apparently, so far at least, without consequences.
It was a mushy, sickening sight to behold as Speaker Pelosi and the other traitors she hangs out with, poured adulation and praises on themselves for the treason they had just committed. They even had the gall to say that what they did was bi-partisan. They had the audacity to say that what they did was for the American people. But what they did was a traitorous act AGAINST the American people, against the principles of freedom, against the free market, against capitalism and in direct violation of their solemn oaths to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States. What they did was to have pierced the heart of America with an arrow, laced with the poison of deceit and lies.
How dare they “thrust” a 2,000-page bill down the throats of hard-working Americans to provide health care for illegal aliens. How dare they threaten fines and jail terms for not complying with a law that is not only unconstitutional, but that almost no one has read, including those that passed it. How dare they pay for this monstrosity by denying health care for our senior citizens. How dare they say that the bill will only cost a trillion dollars (a Trillion Dollars mind you) and is revenue neutral, when not one single bill ever passed by congress has ever been revenue neutral and most entitlement laws cost many factors above the original projections. How dare they nationalize the health care industry and stick their noses into the private, individual lives of Americans. But worst of all, how dare they exceed the enumerated powers as specifically delineated in the Constitution under Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1 through 18. That in and of itself is a treasonous act and should be dealt with harshly.
Nevertheless, in spite of the glee that the “Pelosi” gang expresses for passing the health care bill in the House on the late evening of the 7th day of November in the year of our Lord 2009, it is still along way from passage. The Senate must now pass a companion bill and then the two bills must be merged in conference committee. Both Houses are a long way apart at this writing. So the Bill the House just passed, in all likelihood, won’t look anything like the final bill, even if there is a final bill. Maybe it will be 4,000 pages that no one has read. Maybe it will be so complicated that a thousand lawsuits will be brought before the United States Supreme Court and there it will be torn to pieces, or shot down in its entirety. We can only hope. But even worse, if the health care does pass, it will provide more opportunities for emotionally and financially draining lawsuits between aggrieved parties, egged on by lawyers who make their living of off human weaknesses and interpreting laws that no one else can understand.
What transpired on this dark night of November in the House of Representatives, represents one of the six pillars of enslavement that the progressives in power are attempting to achieve. They are well on their way to reaching their goal. Nationalized health care will control all of our entire private, personal lives. Cap and Trade legislation will control all of America’s energy. The Clean Water Restoration Act will control ALL waters of the United States. Several bills in the Congress are designed to control all food produced on the productive soils of this great land. An international treaty, if ratified by the Congress, will bring gun control to America, in spite of the Second Amendment. The National Environmental Policy Act, the Marine Mammals Act, the Salmon Recovery Act and the Endangered Species Act (and too many more acts and laws to mention here), administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, will control all land in America. When the progressives control your health, your land, your water, your food, your energy and your guns, you will have been ensnared in a trap that they have been laying for you for the last 80 to 100 years, while you were sleeping.
So we say, now is the time to yell it from the roof tops of America. Scream it from the highest peaks of all the mountains. Aggressively speak it at government meetings, town halls, protests and civic assemblies. Mean these words with all your heart and commit your lives, your fortunes and your sacred honor to them, because it will take that commitment if we are to win:
111 New Federal Bureaucracies Created in Pelosi Health Care Bill
November 2, 2009
ARTICLE MEDIA RELATED
NOVEMBER 2, 2009!
Print
Email
Permalink
Share
The House Republican Conference has compiled a list of all the new boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and programs created in H.R. 3962, Speaker Pelosi's government takeover of health care:
1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)
2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)
3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)
4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)
5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)
6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)
7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)
8. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)
9. Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)
10. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)
11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)
12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)
13. Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)
14. "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321, p. 211)
15. Ombudsman for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321(d), p. 213)
16. Account for receipts and disbursements for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 322(b), p. 215)
17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)
18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for "culturally and linguistically appropriate services" (Section 1222, p. 617)
19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)
20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)
21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)
22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)
23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)
24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)
25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)
26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)
27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)
28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)
29. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)
30. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)
31. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)
32. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)
33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)
34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)
35. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)
36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)
37. Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)
38. Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)
39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)
40. "Identifiable office or program" within CMS to "provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles" (Section 1905, p. 1191)
41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)
42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)
43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)
44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)
45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)
46. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)
47. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)
48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)
49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)
50. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)
51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)
52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)
53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)
54. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)
55. Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)
56. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)
57. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)
58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)
59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)
60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)
61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)
62. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)
63. Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)
64. "No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza" demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)
65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)
66. Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)
67. University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)
68. Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)
69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)
70. Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)
71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)
72. Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)
73. Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)
74. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)
75. Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)
76. Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)
77. Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)
78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)
79. Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)
80. Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)
81. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)
82. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)
83. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)
84. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)
85. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)
86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)
87. National Women's Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)
88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)
89. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women's Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)
90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)
91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)
92. Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)
93. Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)
94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)
95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)
96. Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)
97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)
98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)
99. Office of Indian Men's Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)
100.Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)
101.Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)
102.Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)
103.Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)
104.Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)
105.Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)
106.Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)
107.Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)
108.Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)
109.Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)
110.Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)
111.Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)
so a $1.2 TRILLION dollar expansion of the federal government is the SOLUTION? REALLY? Wake up and face it, it was never about health care. simply a power grab by corrupt politicians.
They will be able to regulate every aspect of our lives when they link it to health. What you eat, what you drink, what you drive, what guns you can own, what vaccinations are mandatory , mental health evaluations , exercise requirements , genetic screening , pretty much all the worst parts of various bad science fiction novels are now only a wink and a nod away from being some twisted part of every day reality ...... scary shit if you are awake and not asleep.
Someone show me a socialist country where the citizens are NOT getting 50% or more WITHHELD directly from their checks on top of taxes built into everything?
RIP USA
Once you start down the road of marxism/socialism, it is virtually impossible to reverse course. Remember, the goal of marxism/socialism is TO REDUCE EVERYONE TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR. Commensurate with this is the confiscation of virtually all personal wealth/property and the "redistribution" of it FOR THE COLLECTIVE GOOD. In these systems you HAVE NO PERSONAL RIGHTS. PERSONAL RIGHTS ARE BAD. What is good and what matters is the COLLECTIVE GOOD - as defined by THEM, of course. If what is good for you personally and what is good for the collective are not in sync, guess who will lose?
Posted on Sunday, November 08, 2009 8:49:41 AM by Wpin
Okay, we are all disgusted, dispirited, angry, and not sure of what to do next. Evidently, the Tyrants in the democrat party do not care if we have Tea Party's, they mock us. They don't care if they lose some elections, they mock us. They persecute our leaders and they mock us.
How can we hit back? Tea Party's are good, but they have been relatively inaffective. We are ignored or mocked. Let's consider hitting these bastards where it will really count, let's call for a national strike by the people! Not a union strike, this is an American people strike, yes we have the right to do that folks! What is really cool is we don't have to travel long distances to do it, we can organize Tea Party's at local spots on that day. But, the theme is Shut Down The System Day! And if the bastards in Washington don't back off, we do it again...maybe for a week. Really shut the whole economy down. If there are truly millions who are with us, this could work...
Can we get some consensus on this? If so, when? I would suggest that it is no more that one month away, but no sooner than a week or two so we can get full participation. We also need to organize how to get the word out. I will donate $10,000 towards that goal if we get a good plan going...
the federal goverment has exceded its authority and I as a resident and citizen
of california am now instructing you that I want you to call for a
Constitutional Convention in order to rewrite the constitution, repeal or
rescind the healthcare reform act and to dismiss the current federal government.
you were elected to serve the citizens of california, now please follow thru
on your duty to serve my mandate, sincerely an unforgetting california citizen.
You know maybe people are taking this Obama/Lincoln thing too far. First it was all that Team of Rivals nonsense, now apparently Barack Obama is going to preside over the breakup of the United States and a civil war in 2010. Unclear on the status of a chin beard or top hat in Obama's future.
For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument -- that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. -- very seriously. Now he's found an eager audience: Russian state media.
In recent weeks, he's been interviewed as much as twice a day about his predictions. "It's a record," says Prof. Panarin. "But I think the attention is going to grow even stronger."
...
"There's a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur," he says. "One could rejoice in that process," he adds, poker-faced. "But if we're talking reasonably, it's not the best scenario -- for Russia." Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S.
Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces -- with Alaska reverting to Russian control.
This is intensely dispiriting to those of us who were excited about the end of the world in 2012. Now it turns out we'll be fighting in the trenches with six other US geo-states in a battle for resources and won't have time to watch Quetzalcoatl destroy the earth. Lest we think the man spouting these predictions is a nut, it turns out he's a former KGB analyst, is the dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's diplomatic academy, gives lectures, visits the Kremlin, and appears on TV as a US/Russia expert. So he's at the very least a well conected, high ranking nut.
According to him we in the Northeast will become Atlantic America and will join the European Union, while Canada eats the midwest and California takes all of the PAC-10 and brings it under Chinese influence. Showing his complete understanding of Texas, he thinks Texas and other nearby states will break off and join Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Sarah Palin throws of the shackles of forbidden love and brings Alaska back to dearest Vladimir, and the Japs take Hawaii. Apparently no one self governs, we all just break up and then join disparate nations thousands of miles away.
A Big Step Towards Communism, Comrade
Posted by: JMFuentes on Nov. 7, 2009
I think the cover of Time Magazine should headline with “We are all Communists, Now”. I watched as the House of Representative voted along party lines to pass the monstrous HR 3962, the 1,990 page behemoth, that places us firmly on the same path as Nazi Germany during Hitler’s restoration.
You see, elections have consequences, and this is the consequence of Socialist Democrats who want to be in every aspect of your lives. Not one Democrat who voted for this abomination believes that you, the American Citizen, has the sense or the intelligence to make your own choices as to how you obtain your health care. Now, of course the Senate, particularly Harry Reid, will be emboldened to use “Reconciliation” in order to finish the job.
This is the sort of thing that you thought would never happen. This is the hostile takeover that some of you still deny the truth of! Well, here is the bill that they passed late Saturday Night, not that you are going to read it anyway! If you had, you would have seen the mandates that included jail time as a consequence of non compliance. If you had, you would have seen the $900 billion in tax increases that are going to be YOUR BURDEN! If you would have read this bill, you would have been outraged!
Welcome to the Nanny-State! Welcome to the Age of INGSOC. We have opened that door, today. If you thought this country was going down the tubes already, congratulations! America has just gotten on the express train towards collapse.
Now, if the Senate is stupid enough to pass any version of this, then Cap and Trade is next. After that, Obama will sign the Copenhagen Climate Treaty. The Dollar will collapse shortly after that.
This Blog Linked From Here
This Blog
Linked From Here
.
Please Show Your SUPPORT!
Special THANKS to the VERY Small Group who Appreciate These Articles & Donated! Please show your support! If you Enjoy these articles, Please Donate.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Coming Soon: $500 for Every Newborn? More Debt Coming
Imagine a world where every baby received a trust fund at birth. It might sound like a fairy tale, but being born into money—or at least into a $500 savings account—could soon become reality for all children born in the United States. Lawmakers are considering a bill that would give each newborn just that, with the goal of promoting savings that would later be used for education, a first home, or retirement. Here's what you should know about the ASPIRE ("America Saving for Personal Investment, Retirement, and Education") Act:
How would this program work?
The ASPIRE Act would give each child born in the United States a $500 savings account. Recipients could then use that money once they were older to pay for education, a first home, or retirement. Low-income children would receive additional funding, and all participants could add to their accounts over time.
greenspan
irrationally kept interest rates close to zero extend for years
never saw a crisis that did not demand more funny money out of air
personally responsible for blowing up the bubbles full of hot air
said he could not tell the bubbles were indeed bubbles, total nonsense
was seen as a demogod, like he has some grand understanding, horseshit
clinton
he along with greenspan convince congress to do away with glass-steagle
banking act that came out of the depression, what a greedy idiot-savant
along with greenspan pushed the nasdaq and other markets to unreasonable
unrational and unsustainable levels, he and greenspan are the original
fathers of the bubbles, make no mistake about that, it was up up + away
gwbush
cut taxes for the rich, way beyond anything that made any commpn sense
his main mandate for office was that he would develop an energy policy
lets see oil went up ten fold in his term and vp and haliburton made
millions on the oil and the iraqi war, oh ya there were no wmd either
he along with acorn made sure that anyone from illegals to criminals
could get a liars loan for a house, complete fucking tards him and acorn
obama
spending has far exceeded that of a common game of monopoly, outrageous
rest of the world has given up on usa spending habitually out of control
wants complete government takeover, where will jobs come from? unknown?
no skills whatsoever to be commander in chief, emperor has no cloths
his leadership takes and puts usa over and beyond the end or edge
country becomes permant 3rd world nation, with histories biggest debt ever
pelosi
bank bailout ripoff now the healthcare takeover ripoff and soon capntrde
this women is a complete pinhead, from sf the sanctuary city, repulsive
been a main supporter of illegal aliens since forever, shes unamerican
can't say shes ever done anything for a regular type of american citizen
Friday, November 6, 2009
Is Our Whole Banking System Catastrophically Insolvent?
A good friend on mine works for a real estate consulting firm in NYC. One of his deals is evaluating a client's investment in an insolvent commercial property. The deal has $110 million bank loan funded by Bank of America. My friend said the property is worth $30-40 million. What I found interesting, and which confirms that banks are not even close to marking their assets properly, is that my buddy said that B of A is carrying the loan on its books at the full $110 million.
I just did a "drive-by" on B of A's latest 10-Q. It has $2.1 trillion in assets, not including cash. It is reporting $257 billion of shareholder equity. Now, BAC is over-marking the above-referenced asset by 70%. Assume across all of its assets, BAC is being generous in its marks by only 10%. This exercise implies that a true mark-to-market of BAC's balance sheet would wipe out BAC's shareholder equity.
Is this unrealistic? I think, if anything, my analysis errs in the favor of BAC. Why? BAC has $159 billion of home equity loans on its books. We know that, in general, most home equity loans are probably worth nothing. Let's say BAC's are worth 50 cents on the dollar (this is generous). That adjustment alone would reduce BAC's book value by nearly $80 billion.
The bank has a loan loss reserve of 3.8% of its $914 billion in loans. But the charge-off ratios for residential mortgages and credit cards (not including commercial r/e) was 4.73% in the latest quarter for mortgages and 12.9% for credit cards. Clearly, BAC is unequivocally under-reserving for the purposes of managing earnings and mainting its vital capital ratios. And we know that the banks are undeniably stretching out their declarations of delinquencies, defaults and charge-offs.
My point here is that between the home equity loans and the anorexic loan loss reserve, I can demonstrate that BAC's shareholder equity is overstated by at least 50%. I haven't bothered addressing the larger balance sheet items of residential mortgages (a large portion of which come from its acquisition of Countrywide, which we know was the goliath of toxic mortgage lending) and commercial loans. Imagine what a realistic assesment of those items would do to BAC's book value.
Then there's the off-balance-sheet toxic waste (like SIV's, CDO's, VIE's and derivatives). I said I did a "drive-by" on BAC's latest 10-Q, meaning I spent a couple hours digging through the footnotes looking for the obvious accounting exploitations the bank used to pervert its accounting presentation. I wanted to show that Bank of America is technically insolvent. If someone wanted to spend the time dissecting the derivatives disclosures and special purpose financing vehicles, I'm sure it could be shown that Bank of America would collapse tomorrow without the Federal Reserve and taxpayer support tossed its way (please note, most of the Fed support has taxpayer guarantees - you can thank Paulson, Geithner and Bernanke for that goody tossed at the banks).